Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Big Brother Banking? UK’s New “Fraud Bill” Sparks Fears of Financial Snooping

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 26, 2024

A considerable scandal broke out in the UK under the previous government over a practice dubbed, “debanking” – which saw various public, but not only, figures cut off from financial services as a way of punishing them for their political views.

That also faced a considerable backlash, but the Labor government that took over earlier in the year doesn’t seem to be willing to give up on the core postulates: it appears to be just trying to go about achieving the same end goal in a more “subtle” manner.

The policy is this: give banks spying powers over everybody, but call that a requirement for banks and financial institutions to “share data that may show indications of potential benefit overpayments.”

In order to achieve the stated goal, the whole population’s bank accounts are likely to be monitored.

So one can think of this as the financial sector version of the “online age verification” push. In that scenario everybody (“the whole population”) loses their right to anonymity for no good reason – but a reason, nonetheless. Opponents say it’s to surveil and control as many people, in as many ways possible, at one time.

The UK government naturally keeps its messaging on this legislative initiative as “clean” as possible – it’s to crack down on fraud in the social security system, they say.

Remember what it’s called, because it is sure to crop up in the future, and not in a good way: “Fraud, Error and Debt Bill.”

The government plays not only on people’s natural aversion to fraud but also on sensibilities around spending taxpayer money – the sponsors promise not to waste £1.6 billion ($2.1 billion) of public money over the next five years, just thanks to this bill.

But, to get there, they need to “extend and modernize DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) powers.”

Like this: “Better investigate suspected fraud and new powers of search and seizure so DWP can take greater control investigations into criminal gangs defrauding the taxpayer. (…) Require banks and financial institutions to share data that may show indications of potential benefit overpayments.”

Hold the phone, rights groups are basically saying at this point. And then some are blasting this as (PM) Keir Starmer’s “benefits bank spying plans.”

“A financial snoopers’ charter targeted to automate suspicion of our country’s poorest is intrusive, unjustified, and risks Horizon-style injustice on a mass scale,” said Big Brother Watch, adding that his was “an assault on the presumption of innocence.”

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU country firing ‘pro-Russia’ civil servants – media

Lithuanian soldiers at the presidential palace in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2024. © SOPA Images / Getty Images
RT | September 29, 2024

Lithuania is actively investigating and dismissing “disloyal” officials who are reportedly being accused of having pro-Russian views, local broadcaster TV3 has reported.

According to a report aired on Saturday, several police officers and firefighters have been dismissed from their posts or warned about their views and labeled ‘vatniks’ – a derogatory term used to insult supporters of the Russian government, which derives from a jacket once worn by Red Army soldiers.

The report claimed that “pro-Russian statements lead to job losses,” warning that public servants “should think carefully” before openly expressing their views on social media.

“After the start of the war in Ukraine… nine police officers were identified as possibly pro-Russian,” Ramunas Matonis, the head of the police communication division, told TV3, adding that while most of the officers denied holding these views during “preventative talks” conducted by the department, one of them “was not granted an extension to work with classified information.”

It quoted the minister of internal affairs, Agne Bilotaite, as saying that the authorities “are closely monitoring the situation,” adding that only “loyal officials” who hold Lithuania’s official pro-Kiev position are suitable to serve the state.

“We certainly do not tolerate cases where officials demonstrate disloyalty through their actions and behavior,” Bilotaite told the outlet, warning that these “individuals lose the right to work in service, and this is understandable, as officials must be loyal to their country.”

The TV channel highlighted the case of Genadijus Rogacius, a former Lithuanian army soldier who was investigated by the prosecutor’s office after he “criticized Lithuania and glorified Russia” on the internet.

It also claimed that pro-Russian sentiments were revealed in the former Soviet republic when people laid flowers by a Russian tank that was hit during the Ukraine conflict last year and later displayed in Vilnius. The significant support for anti-establishment candidate Eduard Vaitkus in the presidential election also indicated pro-Russian sentiments, according to TV3.

Lithuania has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. It has pursued a number of hardline anti-Russia policies and advocated for increased military aid to Kiev by NATO and the EU.

The authorities have previously ordered the demolition of Soviet war memorials and stripped several Russian-born celebrities living in the country of their citizenship for alleged pro-Kremlin views.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

As the West tries to silence RT, the Global South speaks out

The US-led “diplomatic campaign” to suppress RT worldwide is not getting the warm reception Washington hoped for

By Anna Belkina | RT | September 28, 2024

The United States government has recently issued new sanctions against RT, with the State Department announcing a new “diplomatic campaign” whereby – via US, Canadian, and UK diplomats – they promise to “rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT.”

In other words, the plan is to bully countries outside of the Collective West into shutting off their populations’ access to RT content in order to restore the West’s almost global monopoly on information. Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa appear to be of particular concern to the State Department’s James Rubin, as it is in those regions where US foreign policy has failed to find universal purchase.

As Rubin said during a press conference, “one of the reasons… why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be… is because of the broad scope and reach of RT.”

Clearly not trusting anyone outside of the Western elite circles to think and decide for themselves which news sources people should or should not have access to, Rubin promised that the US will be “helping other governments come to their own decisions about how to treat” RT.

The statement reeks of patronizing and neo-colonialist attitudes, especially when you consider the countries that are being targeted.

Therefore, it has been reassuring to observe over the past couple of weeks the diversity of voices that have spoken out against this latest US-led crusade.

The Hindu, one of India’s newspapers of record, was among the first, reporting that while “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions” against RT, “government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India, while a former diplomat said that banning media organizations showed ‘double standards’ by Western countries.”

This position was seconded by Indian business newspaper Financial Express : “India is unlikely to act on this request [to ban RT], given its longstanding friendly relations with Russia and its own position on media censorship… In India, RT enjoys significant viewership, with its content reaching a large number of English-speaking audiences and also expanding its reach through a Hindi-language social media platform. RT has grown in popularity in India and other parts of the world, claiming that its main mission is to counter the Western narrative and offer Russia’s perspective on global affairs.”

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s Okaz paper said, “it is paradoxical, that when [free] speech becomes a threat to the US and the West, they impose restrictions on it, as it happened with the ban on RT under the pretext of lack of transparency, spreading false information, interfering in internal affairs and inciting hatred – something that Washington and the West themselves do in relation to other countries.”

Leading Lebanese daily Al Akhbar wrote: “despite all the attempts to ban it… RT continues to broadcast and causes concern among supporters of imperial wars. These efforts also demonstrate the hypocrisy of their authors and their false claims about ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press,’ among their other loud proclamations. They claim that RT is a ‘mouthpiece of disinformation,’ but if this is so, then why is there such fear of it? If the channel really is spreading lies, won’t the viewers be able to notice? [This only works] if Western rulers view their citizens as simple-minded and easily deceived, which in turn explains the misinformation coming from every side of the Western media.”

It is safe to say that “Western rulers” view with such disregard and distrust not only their own citizens, but most of the world’s population… But I digress.

In Latin America, Uruguay-based current affairs magazine Caras y Caretas praised RT for “maintain[ing] a truthful editorial line, beyond being a state media outlet, and [it] has increased its popularity and credibility by exposing a perspective that makes it creative, original and authentic… RT has helped open the eyes of a very large part of the world’s population and of increasingly numerous governments and countries. That is the reason for the sanctions that the US and hegemonic media conglomerates such as Meta and Facebook have imposed on RT and its directors, adjudicating against them with the charges that are not believable, and are ridiculous. The statements of top US administration officials claiming to be defenders of press freedom and accusing RT of being a front for Russian intelligence is only an expression of impotence in the face of an alternative narrative to the hegemonic imperialist story.”

Rosario Murillo, the vice president of Nicaragua, sent RT a letter of support. In it, she berated the US authorities for their actions against the network, asking when they will “learn that the aggressions that they shamelessly call Sanctions, (as if they had divine powers to dispense punishments)… have no more sense than establishing their claims to the position [of] dictators of the World.” She praised RT’s “work and the creative, thoughtful, illustrative, sensitive and moving way” that RT “manage[s] to communicate.”

A number of African outlets have also spoken out about the hypocrisy of America’s global censorship. Nigerian newspaper The Whistler summarized the latest Western media diktat and its colonialist undertones thusly: “The Americans got into some quarrel with Russia and then shut down this Russian news channel. An order signed by some American politician in Washington got the European company supplying Multichoice to stop streaming RT… The result? We in Nigeria woke up one day to find we could no longer watch RT on TV or stream them on Facebook because of some drama happening in Washington and Moscow. Imagine the audacity! It was a decision made by Americans and Europeans without asking anybody here in Africa how we felt about it. They decided what we could and could not watch on our own TVs.”

It is heartening to see that so many different countries, with incredibly varied politics, societies, and cultures, speaking out against Washington’s imposing its world order on them. They prove that RT’s voice continues to be not just necessary, but welcomed and sought after.

Last night, as part of RT’s response to the actions of the US government, the bright green RT logo lit up the facade of the US Embassy building in Moscow with the message: “We’re not going away.”

Not in the US, not in the West at large, not in other parts of the world.

See you around!

September 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany’s BfV intelligence agency includes Remix News on list of websites tied to Russian propaganda campaign

Remix News | September 25, 2024

Remix News has been included on a list of websites accused of being used in a Russian propaganda operations, according to a controversial report from the powerful Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), although Remix News has no ties to Russia.

The report, labeled “Doppelgänger,” made headlines across Germany due to its claims that certain media outlets were pushing Russian narratives or producing news reports that the Russians could use to promote propaganda campaigns. As a result, many of these media outlets, including Der Freitag, Junge Freiheit, and Berliner Zeitung successfully sued the BfV concerning a passage in the report which stated that “from the perspective of the actor, the content in question supports the Russian narrative.” The Bavarian BfV further wrote, “For this purpose, some of the articles were deliberately taken out of context.”

The report describes how Russia was allegedly using a number of news websites to promote its own narrative on social media platforms, and even in some cases, created duplicate news websites that appeared to be authentic to end users.

The lawsuit was successful and the secret service was forced to change part of the report, which then was updated to read: The BayLfV does not explicitly assume that those responsible for the websites listed here are spreading Russian propaganda or are aware of it or approve of their content being disseminated as part of the ‘doppelgänger’ campaign. Furthermore, the BayLfV does not make any assessment of the content of the websites in question.”

While Remix News is not among the websites mentioned in the actual main body of the report, it is instead included in a table at the end of the report along with about 350 news websites. Many of the news website are smaller, but Reuters, Zerohedge, Newsweek, and top German news outlets, such as Welt, Berliner Zeitung, and Junge Freiheit, are also included.

Many of these websites may not even be aware they are included in this report, as they are too large to be concerned about what a German intelligence agency operating from a single German state is publishing. However, the inclusion of Remix News on this list is problematic. For one, malicious journalists or activists may attempt to smear Remix News for being included on such a list from the German intelligence services, as the list tangentially ties our site to so-called Russian propaganda efforts. Without the proper context, such a list could be deemed extremely harmful to Remix News.

Second, there are no examples given of how Remix News was used by the Russians in their campaign. We are simply left to speculate how our website may have been allegedly used by these “Russian actors.”

For the record, Remix News has no ties to Russia in any form whatsoever.

The entire report appears to be somewhat of a debacle for the German intelligence services and has been heaped with criticism.

Speaking to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Vice President of the Bundestag and FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki said it was a good thing that the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution had been forced to correct its report.

“This correction should also give food for thought to all those who believe that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s assessments are sacrosanct per se. We must continue to be careful that authorities do not restrict the right to freedom of expression for political reasons — not just in Bavaria, but throughout Germany,” he stated.

Media lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel criticized the Bavarian BfV’s failure to act without the threat of a lawsuit, which he said was “certainly one of the most blatant examples of how state bodies try to disparage the media.”

Notably, many of the media outlets listed in the report are seen as critical of the German government. It is unclear how Remix News landed on this list, but it is concerning that we were included with no context whatsoever. Our publication does not have the resources at this time to take legal action against the BfV, and the report remains part of the public record, albeit with an updated correction thanks to the legal battle waged by German media outlets.

Some commentary pieces Remix has published from Poland are strongly critical of Russia and the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, some content we have published that conveys arguments from a Hungarian perspective, simply state the official position, which has never condoned Russia’s invasion. These pieces have simply stated Hungary will not send weapons to Ukraine and has consistently called for a ceasefire. However, in both media markets, there is a broad range of opinions, and Remix News has endeavored to publish a wide range of perspectives on this complex issue.

The report is also concerning due to the fact that Remix News has reported a number of times in a critical manner in relation to the BfV. As Remix News has previously reported, the BfV is a highly politicized agency, with a special focus on targeting critics of the government, perhaps most notably the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The BfV is focused on Germany’s domestic sphere and is tasked with ensuring Germany’s constitution is protected. This role has increasingly morphed into fighting parties deemed outside the mainstream, with many analysts viewing the agency as a growing threat to democracy.

It features incredible spying powers, which enable it to monitor political activists and even people who have done nothing wrong besides being members of political parties deemed a threat by the ruling class. The AfD, for instance, is labeled in some states as a “suspected threat” to democracy and a “confirmed right-wing extremist” party, which enables security forces in the BfV to monitor all communications, including email, phone and text messages of all its members.

September 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Democrat Senators Urge Platforms To Share Plans for Addressing “Disinformation” (Even Inside Encrypted Apps)

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 24, 2024

US Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have joined those currently publicly pressuring companies behind social media platforms and encrypted messages – they have identified 11 of the most widely used ones – to make sure they “combat election disinformation.”

Specifically, four Democrats (the letter was also signed by Jeanne Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren) want to know what these companies’ censorship plans are: the senators phrase it as the need to discover what measures will be taken to “de-amplify” (and that includes removal) content and accounts seen as spreading the said type of disinformation.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

How will the tech companies know this is happening on their platforms? They will, the senators write if that content or accounts violate their policies. (That is, those same vague and restrictive policies that have been used and abused over the years.)

As far as Wyden and Merkley and others are concerned, it doesn’t matter if this content they consider to be election disinformation is AI-generated or not.

On the encrypted chat apps front, they want the companies operating them to “explain whether they have a reporting system for their users to flag unwanted election disinformation and what enforcement measures are in place.”

To cover all this the way the senators see fit, the companies and their platforms – Meta, Google (YouTube), TikTok, X, Reddit, Snapchat, Amazon (Twitch), Discord, Signal, Telegram, and Apple (Messages) – are urged to “increase resources” needed to fight what the US lawmakers describe in terms presented as a national-level crisis.

They warn that disinformation that is allegedly now more present than ever could suppress voter participation, but also “sow doubt in US democracy and incite political violence.”

The many times repeated references are made in the senators’ letter about alleged foreign disinformation campaigns during the 2020 and 2022 elections in the US, and a note is made that this “disinformation” would at that time remain online longer if it was in Spanish.

Essentially, what Wyden and Merkley now want from the tech giants – but also companies like Signal, that bill themselves as the ultimate privacy-friendly choice – is a report, to keep them on the straight and narrow, at least the way that is perceived by four Democrat senators at the height of a presidential campaign.

“Share information about the size and capacity of their 2024 US elections safety resourcing – including personnel and technologies – broken down by language,” is the opening demand aimed at social platforms.

September 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Mystery of Andrew Bridgen’s vanishing votes

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2024

After 14 years as MP for North West Leicestershire, former Conservative Andrew Bridgen lost his seat in spectacular fashion at the general election in July with an implausible 95 per cent decrease in votes. This made no sense as he enjoyed more than 95 per cent recognition on the doorstep, an endorsement from US politician Robert F Kennedy Jr, and a positive response from his constituents, many of whom had received justice because of his interventions.

A popular MP, fighting David-and-Goliath causes considered taboo by the government but essential by the electorate, he had become a thorn in the Conservative government’s side, and he was expelled in April 2023. Facing ferocious opposition from his own party, he exposed the Horizon Post Office scandal, fought for recognition for the covid vaccine injured and bereaved, and highlighted the iniquity for those facing compulsory house purchases to make way for the HS2 rail link. He was forced to sell his family home to HS2 and personally lost £500,000.

Bridgen was first elected in 2010, in what was then a Labour stronghold considered ‘unwinnable’ by David Cameron, overturning a Labour majority of 4,477 to win with a majority of 7,511, 45 per cent of the vote. In the 2015 and 2017 general elections, he kept his seat and increased his margins to 11,373 (49 per cent) and then 13,286 (54 per cent). In 2019, his majority increased again to 20,400, 63 per cent of the vote, with 33,811 voters.

To drop from 63 per cent of the vote to 3.2 per cent with just 1,568 votes seems implausible. Bridgen said: ‘After the election people were coming up to me, and still are, saying, “I voted for you, my whole family voted for you. What happened?”’

Compare Bridgen’s 2024 result with that of former Labour MP George Galloway, now leader of the Workers Party of Britain. In 2003, Galloway left Labour to become independent and in March 2024 won a landslide by-election in Rochdale with 12,335 votes, almost 6,000 more than any other candidate. He lost the general election four months later to Labour’s Paul Waugh, by just 1,539 votes – Waugh 13,047 and Galloway 11,508, a 15 per cent decrease.

Bridgen’s competitors were virtually unknown in the area too, although Conservative candidate Craig Smith (who came second) does live locally. Both have a tiny social media presence compared with his own. Labour’s Amanda Hack, who won the seat, has just 840 followers on Facebook, Craig Smith who came second, fares marginally better with 2,200 followers, but nothing in comparison with Bridgen who currently has 28,000 Facebook followers. His rival MPs’ X presence is just as pitiful; just 2,431 follow Hack, a measly 1,366 follow Smith while 261,900 follow Bridgen.

So what happened? Bridgen thinks that the vote could have been tampered with, a suggestion strenuously denied by North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) which has responsibility for collecting and counting the votes, and has highlighted what he sees as anomalies. A council spokesman said: ‘With the exception of the exit poll being cancelled, the allegations being made have no factual basis and are based on inaccurate assumptions.’

The contentious issues for Bridgen surround the exit poll, the opening of the ballot boxes and new electoral services staff. Is there any evidence to support him or are the inconsistencies coincidence or misinterpretation?

The market research company Ipsos-MORI conduct exit polls on behalf of the BBC, Sky Television and ITV. Just two weeks before the election, they cancelled the North West Leicestershire exit poll with no explanation, removing any chance to check voters’ candidate preference.

Political scientist John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, curates the information for Ipsos-MORI and confirmed that North West Leicestershire (and Rochdale for that matter) had no exit poll. He said: ‘The only exit poll was an exercise conducted at 134 locations across the UK and designed to estimate the outcome across the country in seats.’ There are 650 seats in the UK.

NWLDC also admitted the poll was cancelled and their spokesman said: ‘We were only informed at the very last minute.’

Bridgen questioned the time it took to count the vote. The ballot boxes took around 25 minutes to reach Whitwick and Coalville Leisure Centre, a central location in the constituency, where the ballot papers were counted.

Polling stations closed at 10pm and Allison Thomas, CEO of the council and returning officer for the constituency, said they would not begin the count until 2am – a four-hour time lag. ‘There was no explanation,’ Bridgen said. ‘The election officers were unnaturally nervous too. You’d have thought they were the ones standing for election. None of it stacked up. I’ve been through around 20 elections locally and I’ve never seen anything like that.’

Bridgen’s manager David Baggett confirmed: ‘The ballot boxes were slow to come in. They were still validating the ballot papers when the final count was called in Newcastle.’

Validation means election staff check the number of ballots received against voter roll lists that are checked at each polling station.

NWLDC appointed Ms Thomas as CEO in August 2022. In April 2023, after he had been expelled from the Conservative Party, Bridgen said: ‘I was informed that the whole of the election services department had resigned en masse, on a Friday, and they’d been replaced by a new team. That was amazing because I can’t remember anybody leaving since I became the candidate in 2006. There were three people in the department, they weren’t relatives, so I can’t understand why they all left on the same day. I think that’s very, very unusual.

‘I spoke to Allison Thomas to ask what was going on. And her answer was that it was the right time for them to move on, whatever that means. Before the election I wanted to have a meeting with the new team. I was very uncomfortable about it. It took a long time to get a meeting.’

The council have denied that the whole team left but admitted  Bridgen and Baggett met election services staff before the general election. Their spokesman said that two staff retired in 2022, no staff left or retired in 2023 or 2024, and two original staff remained: Democratic Services Manager Clare Hammond and Electoral Services Officer Chris Colvin. Both met Bridgen and Baggett.

Bridgen was concerned that electoral services staff were on their own in Stenson House, a council building in Coalville, while all other departments had been relocated to other buildings. Part of the council’s offices were due to be demolished, hence the mass exodus.

Bridgen said: ‘We had the meeting four weeks before the election in the old premises. Clare Hammond joined, saying “I thought you’d like to see a familiar face.” It turned out that the whole of the council had decamped, leaving electoral services in that big old building on their own. There was no oversight of them, so no one knew what they were doing.’

The council said: ‘This is not the case. Our entire staff moved to new administration offices in April 2023. For the purposes of administering and managing all elections, the elections team book rooms at Stenson House. This is to enable all members of the team to work in the same office, and to allow the team the space they need to receive postal votes, organise ballot boxes and other work that requires space. This work takes place at Stenson House for every election and has done for many years.’

Bridgen was always popular with his constituents, and his 2024 election address has had 24,231 views on YouTube.

‘Michael and Susan Rudkin from Ibstock were my constituents,’ Bridgen said. ‘Michael was chairman of the National Federation of Subpostmasters. He appeared in ITV’s drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office about the Horizon scandal, and witnessed Fujitsu’s engineers altering sub-postmasters’ accounts remotely at their HQ. The day after he visited Fujitsu, his wife was accused of stealing £44,000 from the post office and wrongly convicted. I helped get that conviction overturned.’

By contrast many in the Conservative Party hated him, and the government refused 20 requests to debate excess deaths after the UK saw a 9 per cent increase in 2022, a year after the covid vaccine rollout.

Bridgen also challenged the World Health Organization’s power grab, continued to highlight the government’s gross ineptitude and handling of the covid pandemic, and they finally kicked him out after Matt Hancock accused him of anti-Semitism, clearly twisting his  words. Discussing the horrendous rise in post covid vaccination heart issues, Bridgen tweeted: ‘As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.’

On alleged vote rigging he said: ‘If there was any skulduggery relating to the vote, it would have had to have been before the ballot boxes got to the leisure centre. I have no idea who would have been behind it. I tell constituents who ask that I’m trying to get to the bottom of it but without a whistleblower, I’m not sure I ever will.’

If anyone has any information about the vote, please email: sally@sallybeck.co.uk

September 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 2 Comments

Spain’s Disinfo Crackdown Censorship Trap, Sanchez Faces Backlash

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 23, 2024

Spain is yet another EU country that is coming up with legislative measures which officials say are necessary to combat “disinformation” both on social sites and in traditional media.

Such a plan, consisting of 31 points, has been approved by Spain’s Council of Ministers (the main government body), but the opposition is already rejecting it as a ploy to censor free speech.

“More transparency and accountability” is how Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez would like the measures, which will be debated in parliament, to be perceived.

The debate should be interesting, not least considering that the minority government has come up with the proposal supposedly to tackle disinformation – but in the wake of corruption allegations involving the prime minister’s wife.

The accusations leveled at Begona Gomez earlier in the year led to an inquiry, and now the government is determined to push new measures through the parliament that would stop “the spread of false news.”

And this in particular – and coincidentally? – applies to such news when they concern “public institutions and individuals.”

It seems pretty transparent what prompted all this, but that’s not what Sanchez says he has in mind when he talks about transparency: the prime minister frames the plan as needed to protect both accurate information, and democracy.

And not only that, but make that democracy “freer and cleaner” as the justice minister in the left-wing coalition government, Felix Bolanos, chose to put it. And he may or may not be the only one who knows what that is supposed to mean.

Meanwhile, the key opposition, right-wing People’s Party said it would vote against the proposal, as they believe the entire endeavor has to do with ushering in more censorship.

The plan which Bolanos stated should “restore confidence” in the media can also be read as putting some not-so-subtle pressure on them.

Amendments to the penal code are among the proposed provisions, but also a closer government look into media outlet’s finances – referred to as yet more transparency, this time around revenues.

Reports say that to achieve all this, the Spanish government wants to set up “a special commission to combat disinformation” and, speaking of revenues, another measure is to “restrict the operation of corporate advertising in the media.”

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Telegram Will Now Share Users’ IP Addresses and Phone Numbers With Governments in Response to Legal Requests

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 23, 2024

Telegram, the messaging app that once positioned itself as the rebel’s answer to Big Tech surveillance, has made a sharp U-turn on the “we protect your data at all costs” highway. On Monday, the company quietly updated its privacy policy to allow for the disclosure of user information—like those precious IP addresses and phone numbers—to law enforcement, but only, of course, if they present a valid legal request.

As we all know, no one has ever stretched the definition of “valid” to fit their agenda, right?

This revelation comes hot on the heels of a little incident back in August, when Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov found himself in handcuffs, detained by French authorities. What was the crime? Well, it appears Telegram was accused of playing hardball with French law enforcement, refusing to hand over data, leading to Durov’s arrest. It seems law enforcement didn’t take kindly to that level of noncompliance, especially after making 2,460 unanswered requests for information.

The Policy Flip-Flop

The new policy revision is a complete about-face from the one Telegram’s loyal fans were sold on. The old rules were crystal clear. Telegram might give up your details—your IP address and phone number—but only if you were a suspect in a terror case. The policy even reassured everyone that this kind of handover had never happened.

Not anymore.

Now, Telegram has widened the net. According to the newly revised policy, if you violate Telegram’s Terms of Service—you know, the thing no one ever reads—they may hand over your info if they get a “valid” order. The language is dripping with corporate hedging: “If Telegram receives a valid order from the relevant judicial authorities that confirms you’re a suspect in a case involving criminal activities that violate the Telegram Terms of Service, we will perform a legal analysis of the request and may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities.”

Of course, Telegram is still committed to transparency—at least on paper. The company promises to disclose all such incidents in its quarterly transparency reports, which, conveniently, can be accessed via a dedicated bot.

Durov’s Declaration: Aimed at Who, Exactly?

Durov took to Telegram to tell users, “We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, ensuring they are consistent across the world.”

He continued, “We’ve made it clear that the IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate our rules can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.”
Durov further added, “These measures should discourage criminals. Telegram Search is meant for finding friends and discovering news, not for promoting illegal goods. We won’t let bad actors jeopardize the integrity of our platform for almost a billion users.”

The French Connection

But what really forced Telegram’s hand? Let’s rewind to Durov’s August airport arrest, where things started to get clearer.

After allegedly over 2,400 ignored requests for data, French authorities had had enough. They brought in the National Gendarmerie to get to the bottom of Telegram’s refusal to cooperate.

Apparently, turning over data wasn’t an option until they started detaining CEOs.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Hillary Clinton’s Sordid History of Secrecy and Censorship

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | September 23, 2024

“You could drop Hillary into any trouble spot, come back in a month and… she will have made it better,” former President Bill Clinton declared in a 2016 speech championing his wife’s presidential candidacy. But Hillary’s entry into the brawls surrounding the 2024 presidential election will leave many Americans wishing to drop her elsewhere.

As the race enters the home stretch, Hillary Clinton is riding in like Joan of Arc to rescue truth—or at least to call for hammering government critics. But Hillary has been a triple threat to American democracy for fifteen years.

Last Monday evening, Hillary declared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC talk show that the federal government should criminally prosecute Americans who share “propaganda”—which she made no effort to define.

Hillary has long been one of America’s foremost censorship advocates. In 2021, she announced that there must be “a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the [social media] platforms currently enjoy.” Hillary made her utterance at a time when freedom in much of the world had been obliterated by governments responding to a pandemic that occurred as a result of U.S. government funding reckless experiments in Chinese government labs. The U.S. denial of its role in the lab leak was perhaps the biggest deceit of the decade but Hillary never kvetched about that scam regarding a program that contributed to millions of deaths. But that wasn’t disinformation—that was public service.

In 2022, Hillary wailed that “tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability” and endorsed European Union legislation to obliterate free speech. But “disinformation” is often simply the lag time between the pronouncement and the debunking of government falsehoods.

That awkward fact didn’t deter Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz from declaring last month, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” Who knew the Minnesota version of the First Amendment has a loophole bigger than Duluth?

After the New York Post shot down Joe Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board in 2022, Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris as chief of a White House disinformation task force to find ways to protect women and LGBTQI+ politicians and journalists from vigorous criticism on the Internet (“online harassment and abuse”). Harris declared that such criticism could “preclude women from political decision-making about their own lives and communities, undermine the functioning of democracy.” To save democracy, the government must suppress criticism of women.

Five years ago, at an NAACP Detroit “Freedom Fund” dinner, Harris proclaimed, “We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.” She did not specify the precise degree of alleged rancor required to nullify a speaker’s constitutional rights. Based on Harris’s prior comments, she will likely sharply increase repression of her critics on social media if she wins in November.

Biden administration censorship schemes have been denounced by federal courts and Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), chair of the House Cybersecurity Subcommittee, sent the White House a letter last week noting that the Biden administration always “advertised its willingness to manipulate the content of social media sites” and called for a cessation of all federal censorship tainting the 2024 election. Mace requested copies of all official “communications with social media companies…concerning the concealment or suppression of information on their sites.” At last report, nobody on Capitol Hill was sitting on the edge of their chair waiting for an informative White House response.

Hillary’s own career exemplifies a political elitist righteously blindfolding all other Americans.

When she was secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, Clinton exempted herself from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), setting up a private server in her New York mansion to handle her official email. The State Department ignored seventeen FOIA requests for her emails and said it needed seventy-five years to comply with a FOIA request for Hillary’s aides’ emails. The Federal Bureau of Investigation shrugged off Hillary’s aides using a program called BleachBit to destroy 30,000 of her emails under subpoena by a congressional committee. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth labeled the Clinton email coverup “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” An Inspector General report slammed FBI investigators for relying on “rapport building” with Team Hillary instead of using subpoenas to compel the discovery of key evidence. The IG report “questioned whether the use of a subpoena or search warrant might have encouraged Clinton, her lawyers… or others to search harder for the missing devices (containing email), or ensured that they were being honest that they could not find them.” The FBI’s treatment of Hillary Clinton vivified how far federal law enforcement will twist the law to absolve the nation’s political elite, or at least those tied to the Democratic Party.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department gave grants to promote investigative journalism in numerous developing nations as part of its “good governance” programs. But exposing abuses was only a virtue outside U.S. territorial limits. Clinton vigorously covered up debacles in the $200 billion in foreign aid she shoveled out. From 2011 onward, AID’s acting inspector general massively deleted information on foreign aid debacles in audit reports, as The Washington Post reported in 2014. Clinton’s machinations helped delude Washington policymakers and Congress about the profound failures of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.

Pirouetting as a champion of candor is a novel role for the former secretary of State. Shortly before the 2016 election, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of voters believed Hillary was honest and trustworthy, and only 35% trusted Donald Trump. The Clinton-Trump tag team made “post-truth” the Oxford English Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year.

Hillary believes that the lesson of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is that good citizens should shut up and grovel. In her 2017 memoir, Hillary claimed that Nineteen Eighty-Four revealed the peril of critics who “sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.” Did Hillary think Orwell dedicated the novel to Stalin? Hillary’s book noted that the regime in Orwell’s novel had physically tortured its victims to delude them. Hillary is comparatively humane, since she only wants to leave people forever in the dark—well, except for the scumbags who undermine the official storyline.

Hillary was a key player in the Barack Obama administration that believed that Americans had no right to learn the facts of the torture committed by the CIA after 9/11. When she was secretary of State in 2012, she declared, “Lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government.” But the more secrets politicians keep, the less trust they deserve.

Hillary’s vision of democracy permits only token interference by underlings. She believes that poohbahs like her have the right to rig elections to sanctify their power. In 2015, when she was running for the presidency, she condemned voter identification requirements as part of a “sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people.” A Washington Post headline aptly summarized her message: “Hillary Clinton Declares War on Voter ID.” This is the bargain Hillary offered; voters didn’t have to identify themselves and she didn’t disclose what she did in office. Subsequent Democratic Party attacks on Voter ID were more successful, leading to sixty million ballots for Biden, millions of which were counted but not verified.

To sanctify censorship, Hillary is again invoking the Russian peril. A 316-page report last year by Special Counsel John Durham noted that in mid-2016, after the shellacking she suffered from her email scandal, “Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” President Barack Obama was briefed on the Clinton proposal “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” FBI officials relied on the “Clinton Plan” to target the Trump campaign even though no FBI personnel apparently took “any action to vet the Clinton Plan intelligence.”

The first three years of Trump’s presidency were haunted by constant accusations that he colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. In 2019, an Inspector General report confirmed that the FBI made “fundamental errors” and persistently deceived the FISA Court to authorize surveilling the Trump campaign.

Hillary’s scams were even too much for federal scorekeepers. The Federal Election Commission last year levied a $113,000 fine on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee for their deceptive funding to cover up their role in the Steele dossier, which spurred the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Trump campaign officials.

In Hillary’s new improved version of the Constitution, there is no free speech for “deplorables”—the vast swath of Americans she openly condemned in 2016. But this is the same mindset being shown by the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Harris has scorned almost every opportunity to explain how she would use the power she is seeking to capture over American citizens. Instead, she is entitled to the Oval Office by acclamation of the mainstream media and all decent folks—or at least those who drive electric vehicles and donate to her campaign.

Is “disinformation” becoming simply another stick for rulers to use to flog uppity citizens? Denouncing disinformation sounds better than “shut up, peasants!” But if politicians have no obligation to disclose how they use their power and can persecute citizen who expose their abuses, how in Hades can American freedom survive? How can we permit our rulers to selectively squelch citizens based on alleged hateful comments when, as historian Henry Adams pointed out a century ago, politics “has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”

Ambitious politicians never lack pious pretenses for destroying freedom. But will censorship by the Biden administration steal the 2024 election for Harris? Unfortunately, according to Hillary Clinton, you are not worthy of knowing the answer.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | 1 Comment

TikTok Likely Coerced Into Scrubbing Sputnik Ahead of Pivotal US Vote to ‘Get Feds Off Their Back’

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.09.2024

Hugely popular video-sharing platform TikTak removed Sputnik International’s account without warning on Saturday, providing no explanation for its decision. Sputnik asked a leading US military and intelligence analyst and former Washington insider about the likely motive of the move.

While it has no legal leg to stand on and an utter lack of domestic support for a ban on TikTok, what the US State Department does have is “unlimited resources with which to prosecute TikTok as a company,” and the latter may have chosen to cooperate with the state by scrubbing Sputnik’s channel to try to “get the feds off their backs,” retired Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.

“Of course, the better choice for Americans would be for TikTok to refuse to cooperate, forcing the federal government’s hand. If the incredibly popular and useful TikTok were to be banned in response to their refusal to remove selected overseas media, it would wake up the masses to the diminished state of their liberty,” she suggested.

Citing the ability of alternative news sources to break through establishment narratives using social media, including to provide an alternative, outsider’s take on US politics and candidates’ respective foreign policy positions, Kwiatkowski predicted that “any reversal of this unwarranted ban” on Sputnik will happen only after the vote, with the restrictions thus serving as “a direct example of the DoJ interfering with the election, and undermining the concept of an informed citizenry prior to an election.”

The deep state needs total “hegemony in the information arena, just as with financial and military power,” Kwiatkowski explained. “The US leadership team believes they can manage all narratives, and limit the flow of evidence that contradicts the current narrative. Domestically, this has worked well, as we saw with the instant domestic media reversal on the health and performance of Joe Biden. Internationally, this control is more of a challenge.”

Furthermore, the state actually has little choice but to continue its attempts to control the narrative and suppress the harmful impacts of its actions both at home and abroad, according to the observer, since the United States today is more and more coming to resemble a “failed state” – suffering from ballooning debt, an electoral system and government lacking transparency, and a leadership taking huge risks with the economy and Americans’ security through their foreign and domestic policies.

“Lastly, the CIA and the surveillance sector of government, which has long specialized in the manipulation of information abroad, and to a significant extent domestically, is more powerful than ever. Its world very much requires the suppression of information and the shaping of ‘truth’ in order to ‘succeed’,” Kwiatkowski stressed.

The federal government and the Justice Department operate using a legally dubious, unwritten code of conduct, Kwiatkowski said, pointing out there’s no legal requirement to ban foreign news sources, and that virtually all of the executive branch’s various bans, boycotts, embargos and other restrictions are unlawful under the Constitution.

“Likewise, the modern US surveillance state uses IT, telecommunications and social media companies as their extra-constitutional tool to directly violate the 1st and 4th Amendments that do not allow federal interference in the conduct of speech, movement, beliefs, assembly, redress of government, and security of body, property and communications. This is the world that TikTok and all social media companies operate in – do what the government tells you or face market losses, and criminal prosecution that while ultimately winnable, can bankrupt most businesses,” Kwiatkowski summed up.

September 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

How US Deep State Co-Opted TikTok

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.09.2024

TikTok wiped Sputnik’s account on Saturday, days after Washington announced draconian new restrictions on Russian media. The company offered no explanation.

The newest round of censorship comes amid the US establishment’s long war against TikTok amid much-touted (but never substantiated) claims by authorities that China uses the app for espionage and influence operations against American users.

The crux of US government claims is that the app sends US customer data to the Asian nation, where it can be seen by Chinese authorities or intelligence services. TikTok says its US data is firewalled from leaving the country via an agreement with American tech giant Oracle.

Joe Biden signed a law in April threatening to completely ban TikTok within 270 days unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance divests from US operations, setting the stage for a legal battle. The measure, packaged in alongside fresh appropriations for US-funded hot spots in Ukraine, Gaza and Taiwan, was rejected by a handful of progressive Democrats and MAGA Republicans, who deemed it a blatant assault on constitutionally afforded free speech.

Senator Rand Paul warned that “once you start objecting to content, what you’re objecting to is speech… The bottom line is, the more information, the better. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. That’s what happens in a free country.”

Congressman Thomas Massie characterized the ban threat as a “trojan horse,” giving the president expansive powers to crack down speech. “Some of us just don’t want the president picking which apps we can put on our phones, or which websites we can visit… We also think it’s dangerous to give the president that kind of power,” Massie said.

TikTok is already banned from use from devices owned by the US federal government, and by numerous state and city governments and universities.

It’s also been banned or restricted in multiple US-allied countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, at least eight EU countries.

Former president Donald Trump kicked off the TikTok censorship saga in 2020 after deeming it a “national security threat,” prompting the company to file a preliminary injunction to prevent such an eventuality. Trump reversed course this past spring, saying banning TikTok would only make Mark Zuckerberg’s “enemy of the people” Facebook “bigger.”

September 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Elon Musk and Brazil: The conflict is more complex than it seems

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 19, 2024

The suspension of services of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil, as well as the threat of an $8,000 fine for anyone using a VPN to continue using the social network, has made global headlines. Although there had been previous reports of friction between X and the Brazilian political-legal system, the news of the suspension surprised many people, in Brazil and abroad.

For foreigners, especially those who consider themselves “anti-imperialist”, it is very difficult to construct a consistent interpretation of this conflict between Musk and Brazil because of the expectations critics of unipolarity have developed regarding Brazil under Lula’s return.

These are the same people who were shocked by Brazil’s hostility toward Nicolás Maduro and a series of other inconsistent positions taken by the Brazilian government on the international stage.

But while investigating how committed the current Brazilian government is to the idea of a multipolar order is relevant, the fact is that Lula has only marginal involvement in the suspension of X in Brazil.

First of all, how is this issue being framed by both sides of the dispute? Generally, the issue of “X” in Brazil is being treated as a conflict between “respect for the law” versus “freedom of expression.” It is difficult to take this framing seriously for a number of reasons.

X, under Elon Musk, has consistently censored or reduced the reach of pro-Palestinian accounts since Musk’s visit to Israel. If X is not like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or the newer BlueSky, it clearly cannot be seen as a bastion of free speech.

On the other side, however, the situation is also a bit more complex than simply the duty of X to comply with Brazilian laws. Elon Musk has indeed raised some concerning points regarding Judge Alexandre de Moraes, who made decisions contrary to Brazilian internet norms and tried to force X to comply with them.

Even setting aside these decisions about social media account censorship, the handling of the X case itself has drawn criticism in Brazil.

The root of this conflict is the fact that Moraes has been leading a criminal inquiry for over five years, now known as the “fake news inquiry,” where he goes beyond the usual role of a passive and impartial judge and actively investigates and judges cases of “disinformation” that allegedly threaten “democracy” and Brazil’s electoral process. The rhetoric is very reminiscent of Orwellian narratives produced in Washington and Brussels.

As the political-legal establishment and its international partners are quite satisfied with the Brazilian government’s current stance on most issues, the main targets of these investigations are figures linked to the opposition.

Thus, in the context of this inquiry, Judge Moraes has ordered the suspension of social media accounts of those under investigation. Such decisions are legally questionable under Brazilian law. First, because the inquiry has far exceeded a reasonable time frame for conclusion and doesn’t appear to have a clear objective. Second, because suspending social media accounts of individuals without a conviction, in an inquiry that seems “endless,” is inappropriate. Third, because the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework, the country’s legislation on internet-related obligations for companies, stipulates that a social media account can only be blocked for specific violations of norms – and Judge Moraes, in his orders to X, never specified the reasons for the suspensions.

These are some of the main arguments, including those raised by Elon Musk, to challenge these judicial decisions.

The situation worsened when Moraes allegedly threatened X’s office employees in Brazil with imprisonment if they failed to comply with his decisions. Amidst this confusion, the Judiciary claims that X’s representative in Brazil has been evading court summonses. On the other hand, there are indications that Moraes’ staff sent the summons to the wrong email address when attempting to notify X.

Nonetheless, these threats explain why X decided to shut down its office in Brazil. Immediately afterward, Moraes ordered X to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil, which is mandatory for companies operating in the country.

Since X did not establish a new representation in Brazil, Moraes ordered the company’s suspension.

The situation would seem more reasonable if Moraes hadn’t also imposed a daily fine of $8,000 on any Brazilians using VPNs to continue accessing the social network. Needless to say, the order was immediately disobeyed by most Brazilian X users, and the Brazilian Bar Association filed an appeal to annul the fine.

The problem with the fine is that it casts doubt on the claim that this is merely a natural consequence of X not having legal representation in the country in accordance with the law. Why, then, impose fines on ordinary users who are not part of the inquiry and were not even notified of the decision (which, again, is unconstitutional under Brazilian law)?

Next, Moraes ordered the blocking of Starlink’s accounts, a company with different shareholders, to collect the fine imposed on X – once again, a decision that violates Brazil’s entire legal framework.

However, the issue transcends the legal debate and refers back to the fact that X is a space successfully used by sectors of Brazilian politics that oppose the “Juristocracy,” as well as the influence of foreign NGOs in Brazil and the current government.

Platforms like Meta, for example, are absolutely controlled by the U.S. Deep State and impose draconian restrictions on anyone who deviates from globalist ideological orthodoxy. Moreover, this may seem incomprehensible and unbelievable to our partners in other BRICS countries, but Brazil does not have an anti-Atlanticist, counter-hegemonic mass media. The Brazilian mass media belongs to an oligopoly that is deeply tied to U.S. media conglomerates.

In this sense, spaces like X represent an “oasis” used by both the right-wing opposition and the anti-imperialist left.

To understand what Moraes and other judges think of this, one only needs to recall a statement he made a few weeks ago: “At the turn of the century, there were no social networks; and we were happier,” said to loud applause from representatives of Brazil’s major TV networks and newspapers.

Naturally – we insist – Elon Musk is not exactly a victim here. He is far from it. For example, it is also true that his Tesla lost contracts to Chinese rivals in Brazil in recent years, which greatly irritated him. It is also true that he believes he can gain greater business penetration in the Brazilian market if Bolsonaro returns to power – and he openly uses his large presence on X to occasionally boost posts from opponents of the Lula government.

Therefore, the case transcends the superficial duality presented as “sovereignty vs. freedom of expression,” and is more accurately an expression of a dispute between different sectors of the Brazilian elite, both with international ties (let us remember that Moraes was part of the international scheme of Operation Car Wash, whose objective was to destroy Brazilian companies, imprison Lula, and overthrow Dilma Rousseff under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice), and both clearly hostile to the project of a new multipolar order.

September 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »